[wendy1946]

Dark energy, which has yet to be verified, can be seen as the opposite of gravity. While gravity pulls matter together, dark energy is what is causing the universe to expand, and at an ever-increasing rate.

The big bang idea was never based on anything better than the idea of an expanding universe which itself was never based on anything better than a misunderstanding of cosmic redshift. In real life, the universe is not expanding, and there never was a big bang.

http://cosmologystatement.org/

http://www.haltonarp.com/

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

That's the scientific view of the thing. Nonetheless a rational person shouldn't even need science to reject the big bang idea; it should have been rejected on philosophical first principles on day one. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes. How in hell is anything supposed to "bang" its way out of that?

Moreover, how is this supposed to have happened at a finite point in time 17B years ago? The expanse of time prior to that would be infinite...

Likewise, there is a question of yuppies claiming that "There wasn't any time before the big bang"... That's basically idiotic. Does that mean that my Japanese Timex watch wouldn't work before the "Big Bang(TM)"?? I mean, the thing came with a guarantee...

Likewise I hear Christian yuppies claiming that they like the big bang idea because it amounts to a creation story of sorts, and must somehow or other be compatible with the creation story of Genesis.

It isn't. Big Bang is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a package. I don't picture a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God all of a sudden deciding that creating a universe would be a cool thing to do while the idea had never occurred to him previously, and whether that is supposed to have happened 6K or 17B years ago doesn't matter. The evidence indicates that the universe, like God, is eternal, and that the creation stories we read refer to the creation of our living world, as per Genesis, something like 6K - 10K years ago. The Earth viewed as a collection of rocks is older than that.

The other part of the thing which is junk science is the idea of black holes based on gravity, which is by many orders of magnitude the weakest force in nature. Merely asking gravity to hold our sun and Alpha Centauri together is like asking gravity to hold two microscopic dust motes together from four miles distance; how in hell is this same weakest force supposed to collapse whole major cosmic objects into black holes??

[Liberty1970]

The evidence indicates that the universe, like God, is eternal,

What evidence is that? How do you reconcile the 2nd law of thermodynamics with this view, for example?

And what do you mean by 'God' is you believe the universe is self-existent? A fundamental attribute of God is that of Creator. If God didn't create, what is God's significance in your worldview?

If the evidence favored an eternal universe, why do so few scientists, both atheistic and theistic, reject that view?

I've signed the Cosmology Statement you linked to, so I agree that the 'Big Bang' is a non-functioning hypothesis, BTW.

[DManA]

The expanse of time prior to that would be infinite...

Time was also created in the big bang. What is north of the north pole?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm going to look up and read your links. I've always said to FReeper don-o (my husband) that "the next thing to go" (the next huge scientific concept to bite the dust) is going to be the set of cosmological assumptions currently claimed for the red-shift.

Just a dumb guess on my part, I'll be the first to admit.

But it would tickle me to think maybe, maybe, maybe I'm right!

[mlo]

"The other part of the thing which is junk science is the idea of black holes based on gravity, which is by many orders of magnitude the weakest force in nature. Merely asking gravity to hold our sun and Alpha Centauri together is like asking gravity to hold two microscopic dust motes together from four miles distance; how in hell is this same weakest force supposed to collapse whole major cosmic objects into black holes??"

I'm sorry, but if you have to ask that question you really shouldn't be propounding your ideas about science as if they were facts.

[earglasses]

We live in Ptolemaic times. Physicists and cosmologists claim to stand on the shoulders of giants, while in fact these pygmies have created a house of cards.

The late Dr. Thomas VanFlandern did a nice job of citing the top ten problems with the Big Bang Theory at http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

There are also a host of problems with the idea of “black holes,” especially in terms of the unavoidable but inexplicable infinite quantities attached to calculations regarding the singularities that abut these (by definition) invisible objects.

If physics is to escape the trap created by internal power politics and academics’ requirement of conformity to conventional wisdom, radically new paradigms must be explored. And more ideas than just those embraced by the Electric Universe folks deserve consideration.

Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions provided the map for open ended investigations. It will require the serious consideration of heresies like those that Dewey Larson incorporated in his Reciprocal System, in which time and space are cast in radically new roles.

Finding an effective new standard model physics and cosmology will require open minds.

[onedoug]

I think inflation works well. What´s your take on creation?